Can Utah courts instruct juries on alternative theories of sexual abuse? State v. Carvajal Explained

In State v. Carvajal, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to jury instructions covering alternative theories of forcible sexual abuse conviction. The case illustrates important strategic considerations when evidence may support multiple paths to liability.

Background and Facts

Jose Carvajal, in his late 40s, engaged in a romantic relationship with a 14-year-old victim with intellectual disabilities functioning at a 7-year-old level. The relationship involved romantic text messages and physical contact, including touching the victim’s breast. During a forensic interview, the victim said Carvajal touched her breast “under her bra,” but at trial testified his hand went “over in my bra.” The State charged Carvajal with forcible sexual abuse and proceeded under both direct touching and indecent liberties theories.

Key Legal Issues

Carvajal claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to object to the indecent liberties jury instruction and the prosecutor’s alternative theory argument. He argued the instruction was improper where the only alleged conduct was touching a breast, and that counsel should have investigated whether the victim told police the touching occurred over clothing.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no ineffective assistance. The court explained that forcible sexual abuse can be proven through direct touching of specified body parts or through indecent liberties when touching through clothing is “comparable to the touching that is specifically prohibited” considering all circumstances. Given the victim’s age, intellectual disability, the defendant’s manipulation through text messages, and the victim’s attempts to stop the touching, evidence supported both theories. Objectively effective counsel could reasonably approve instructions covering both paths to conviction.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that defense counsel must carefully evaluate whether objecting to broader jury instructions serves the client’s interests. Here, the indecent liberties instruction actually provided an alternative theory that required proof of additional circumstances. Counsel’s strategic decision not to object was reasonable given the evidence could support either theory of liability.